September 7, 2012

A surprisingly long parade of Democrats and media commentators who didn’t think much of the speech described it less as a failure than a fizzle—an oddly missed opportunity to frame his presidency or the nation’s choice in a fresh or inspirational light.

Blah blah blah. But here's Howard Kurtz with the response Pee-Wee Herman made famous: I meant to do that.

Kurtz says Obama's speech was the result of careful focus-group testing.

Strategists felt they were in a box, unable to meet the twin goals of style and substance at once. To be sure, Obama wanted to excite the party’s liberal base. But his brain trust was convinced that they would have gotten killed by going with a red-meat speech that simply bashed Republicans without detailing what Obama would do in the next four years....

Dial-twisting focus-groupers, strategists-in-a-box, a brain trust. Where is the man himself, the candidate, the President? I don't see the excuse here, Howie. It's like you're saying he is the empty chair.

202 comments:

As I mentioned in the Bain vampire post comments, here's an example where Chapulín Colorado phrases come in handy.

"Lo hice intencionalmente, para..." ("I did it intentionally, to...")- to justify a dumb action, for example: "I did it intentionally to calculate the resistance of the wall", after walking straight into it.

But to a certain extent, I see some plausibility in what Kurtz is saying. I find it hard to see what Obama could have said to beat expectations or succeed as a speechmaker in the present circumstances. Especially following Clinton's act. And knowing (as Obama did) what the economic report (i.e. unemployment numbers) would be the next day.

Any soaring or self-aggrandizing rhetoric-- any "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal," signature Obama oratory, a rhetorical register pre-mocked by Romney-- would have done worse than fall flat.

We did get the empty "hope… hope… hope " lines discerned by Althouse last night, and that went over like a lead balloon.

I just don't know anymore. I'm pretty independent and I assume I think like many independents. But I thought the convention was an absolute disaster for the Dems. Shrunken stadium, God/Jerusalem controversy and the uninspiring speech by Obama. Yet Gallup is showing a bounce for Obama.

garage mahal said...Playing it safe probably. They think the race is over unless something extraordinary happens.

9/7/12 7:38 PM

Why in the world would they assume the race is won? Maybe this is another example of the Whitehouse cacoon. It reminds me of the leaked Bernstein report where the Whitehouse didn't have Biehner's phone number. They were expecting to keep the House. They were the only ones expecting that.

To the extent that those numbers signify anything (as usual, the internals and partisan weighting-- mostly undisclosed-- call for interpretation), they may capture something of the effect of Michelle & Clinton's speeches, not Obama's speech or today's economic numbers.

I did not listen to the speech ( I can't stand the guy), so I do not know, but in the reporting I hear a lot about the wonderful things that will happen if we just follow him, but little or nothing about exactly what he intends to do in order make those things happen.

Here's what Mitt Romney said the night of Walker's win (from Althouse's post):

Governor Walker has demonstrated over the past year what sound fiscal policies can do to turn an economy around, and I believe that in November voters across the country will demonstrate that they want the same in Washington, D.C. Tonight’s results will echo beyond the borders of Wisconsin. Governor Walker has shown that citizens and taxpayers can fight back – and prevail – against the runaway government costs imposed by labor bosses. Tonight voters said ‘no’ to the tired, liberal ideas of yesterday, and ‘yes’ to fiscal responsibility and a new direction. I look forward to working with Governor Walker to help build a better, brighter future for all Americans.

For those who feel a need to waste their time responding to Ritmo, it's worth reposting a Ritmo admission of what he's up to at Althouse, and why he comments here:

Ritmo said: "It's good to know that the stupidest threads are just ripe for the threadjacking. I'll be sure to leave a trail of turds on every one of the brain droppings here that suit my fancy. Getting you shit-eaters to complain about the taste after opening your mouths wide and saying "Ahhhh..." to every bad idea under the sun is very satisfying, I must admit." - 10/16/10 10:28 AM

m stone said...Clinton made focus group testing the mainstay of the party. Not the Repubs.

Clinton also invented the "permanent campaign" and the Stephanopolosis "war room" litigator approach to politics around the clock. I'm not sure who invented the "politics of personal destruction" but Clinton coined it.

"I did not listen to the speech ( I can't stand the guy), so I do not know, but in the reporting I hear a lot about the wonderful things that will happen if we just follow him, but little or nothing about exactly what he intends to do in order make those things happen."

"As if to validate the campaign’s decision to close the convention with a more subdued speech, new figures released Friday show that the economy created just 96,000 jobs last month, unintentionally underscoring Obama’s message that he has no quick fix for the country’s economic problems."

Does he not understand that the BLS compiles the numbers more than 24 hours before they are released, and that while they are embargoed with respect to the public, that the Prezzy is one of those privy to the information the day before it is released? Obama knew before he delivered the speech, and in sufficient time to tailor the speech in light of the numbers, precisely what the 9:00 am press release would show. That is the routine protocol for handling this information and the Wall Street Journal wrote about this late Wednesday. Howie, smell the coffee.

Dial-twisting focus-groupers, strategists-in-a-box, a brain trust. Where is the man himself, the candidate, the President? I don't see the excuse here, Howie. It's like you're saying he is the empty chair.

Are you shitting me? You even have to ask that question when I and others have been calling this president an empty suit who now resides in an empty chair? Urkel loves to be shaped by his environment and his circumstances, otherwise he just ends up being a nobody with nothing to show for it. That's why he has the repugnant hate against Romney, because Ukrel cannot, nor ever could or will measure up to the accomplishments in the pragmatic world that he's had to operate under while Urkel flies around with his other little bitter angels looking for the pie in the sky.

Crack calls Romney a fraud, well, he's fucking wrong compared to what is in office now? I'll take the worst conservatives have to offer over the absolute best leftards and democrats have to offer any day of the week. Last night was a fail, we all know it was a fail. Leftards are fellating themselves with adulation against the fail.

Urkel should have just showed up with a packed up suitcase, brought out on stage, thanked those that supported him the first four years, said, "Rock on!!! Thank you!!! Goodnight!!!" to whichever of the 57 states he was giving that speech too. And you are looking for a deeper meaning to why he's a double facepalm epic fail?

I think that those who want to choose the Dems option for our future should just move to France. Why destroy the only real alternative. There should be a place for us fools who value freedom. If we are wrong, then to hell with us. You will still be all comfy in your paradise, and we won't bother you unless you try to tax us just because there's nobody with any money left in France soon. There should be a Rubeland full of millionairesandbillionares, and wannabes.

And, were Obama actually self-aware, rather than narcissistic, he'd have known that, and would have exercised a little self-discipline.

But he didn't, and the voters weren't smart enough to see through the charade, so here we are: four wasted years, 4+ trillion more added to the national debt, families 40% poorer than they were in '08, prospects of economic recovery dimmed, potential unemployment at 8+% for the next two or more years, just so some idiots could feel good about voting for the first "Black" president.

Decent healthcare has been a hallmark of America and few if any have had it denied to them. The honest will admit that most of the problems with paying for health care could have been addressed through changing the way insurance companies and employers found themselves tied to each other.

As for education. We have essentially the same problem. Personal choice has given way to big bureaucratic solutions.

Trusting people to make their own choices will always result in some poor choices, but ultimately people learn to make better more informed choices when they are allowed to do it for themselves. This is true of education, health care, housing, food choices, and almost everything else.

It is not the role of government to make choices for people that they can make for themselves.

Why does the whole world only get one vision? Let's have a little variety. Ritmo is right; those places are all wonderful, so like I said, go, and let us rubes fail. Use us as an example of wingnuts gone wild. Just one place on the planet where individuals have status, and value. After we all die a horrible death from lack of health care and free birth control, you can laugh, and feel superior. That would be awesome.

Decent healthcare has been a hallmark of America and few if any have had it denied to them.

See? This is an example of a comment so diametrically opposed to reality as I see it, to reality as the numbers document, that it would be difficult to respond seriously. But wyo sis has the distinction of not only being more honest than Fen but more intelligent (or at least, more reasonable and factual) that it's hard not to respond respectfully.

That said, it's hard to believe that someone can say of a country with tens of millions uninsured that "few if any have had (decent health care) denied to them". Where is the source for this assertion? How is it possible to square that with the tens of millions of uninsured?

Further, who seriously argues (or at least, believes) that poor health care, poor education and poor housing are all caused by a lack of good decision-making skills?

It's like availability and affordability are non-considerations. Do these things simply not exist?

I'm amazed, but at least I can see that some believe this with a straight face.

Kurtz: "While the pundits are generally calling the president’s Thursday night address mediocre, Obama and his advisers had taken great pains to avoid soaring rhetoric that might have been derided as empty."

What amuses me is the assumption by the MSM critics and supporters of Obama that his speech mattered. It didn't. How many times in the last four years have we heard Obama speak? It seems like thousands to me, but maybe it's only dozens. We know how he talks, we know the kind of thing he says. If you're not inclined to let him have another four years to screw up the economy on which your well-being depends, what could he say that would change your mind? Certainly not a repetition of all the things his said before.

Look, suppose he'd come up on that stage and thanked Pres. Clinton and all the other folks for their kind words and then said, "But let's face it. I screwed up. I didn't understand how the economy works. I believed the crap they taught me at Harvard and Columbia, the kind of stuff you heard here from Prof. Warren. It's all wrong. We need to encourage entrepreneurs and job-creators, not vilify them. I've learned that now. Please give me four more years to fix what I broke. Nobody knows better than I do what we did wrong, and what we have to change." That could have changed the dynamic of the election. But he was never going to say that, so the speech was going to be irrelevant.

Why does the whole world only get one vision? Let's have a little variety. Ritmo is right; those places are all wonderful, so like I said, go, and let us rubes fail. Use us as an example of wingnuts gone wild. Just one place on the planet where individuals have status, and value. After we all die a horrible death from lack of health care and free birth control, you can laugh, and feel superior. That would be awesome.

You know, for a guy that has as much as Bag can't decide if he wants us to believe he has, this really sounds like the Whine of the Century.

Anyway, it basically amounts to an invitation to his fellow Americans to leave. How is such a response even warranted? He is saying that because someone isn't happy that America doesn't provide the decent health care afforded by other countries -- countries that also have successful businesses and successful businessmen, one might add -- that they should leave.

A child banging his fists on a table has a more straightforward way of saying he wants to have his cake and eat it, too.

This is a problem when the kid is too upset to even understand that you already told him that he can have the cake.

So I guess the answer is "NO". There can not be any place free from Ritmo's totalitarian boot. Not a single corner of the world can be allowed to follow a different path, because trust me, you'll like it, but regardless, there will be no dissenters on my planet.

As far as I'm concerned, the speech fell flat because it was the same Big Speech he's been giving for years.

The evocation of community effort, the depiction of America in terms of the Great Depression, the promised bright future of more jobs and a more prosperous America, the invidious comparisons with Republicans by strawman arguments, and so on.

I'm reminded of a scene from Blackadder Season 4 set in World War I, in which Blackadder meets with the mad General Melchett and his assistant Lt. Darling.

Melchett: Now, Field Marshal Haig has formulated a brilliant new tactical plan to insure final victory in the field.

Blackadder: Would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of our trenches and walking very slowly towards the enemy, sir?

Darling: How could you possibly know that Blackadder? It's classified information.

Blackadder: It's the same plan we used last time and the seventeen times before that.

Melchett: Exactly. And that is what so brilliant about it. It will catch the watchful hun totally off-guard. Doing precisely what we've done eighteen times before is exactly the last thing they will expect us to do this time.

Not having health insurance is not at all the same as not having access to health care. Hospitals in the 30's and 40's may have turned people away if they couldn't pay, but hospitals long before all this nationalized health care talk started were supplying the poor with care at no cost to them. Many hospitals used donations and many doctors donated time and care, and many religious organizations supported non-profit hospitals and clinics.

The advent of health insurance as an employment benefit in order get around wage and price controls is what started the problem of insurance and the loss of it when a person changed jobs.

That could have been reversed and people freed from that burden without nationalizing health care. A plan that has never resulted in better access to health care in reality.

I shouldn't argue with trolls but when one of them repeats (9:30pm) something that is (a) commonly believed, especially by ignorant foreigners, and (b) utterly false, I suppose I have to. One of them just wrote "it's hard to believe that someone can say of a country with tens of millions uninsured that 'few if any have had (decent health care) denied to them'".

Is our troll unaware that health insurance is not the same thing as health care, that tens of millions of Americans get the latter without having the former, and don't always bankrupt themselves doing so? Two examples:

1. This is dental, not medical, but the difference is irrelevant here. An old friend is uninsured, had been unemployed for several years, and has for the last 3+ years been working for $8/hour 30 hours a week, spending about 6 of those hours just earning the money to pay for the gas to get to work and back (30 miles each way 6 days a week). She hasn't had health or dental insurance in years. Soon after she got the job, she went to my dentist, paid cash for a $200 clean and check and one urgent filling, and got an estimate of $27,000 to get her teeth - which were obviously in very bad shape after years of neglect - fixed. Is she still walking around with rotten teeth? No. There's a county dental clinic which did all that work including multiple caps and bridges for free over the course of a year, and all she had to do besides find the time and wait a few months was bring in her tax forms and paystubs to prove she couldn't afford it. There's a county medical clinic not far from the dental cline, so the fact that this was dental rather than strictly medical made no real difference. In sum: medical care (broadly defined) without medical insurance, and no overhanging debt.

2. I had a serious heart scare in April, including an ambulance ride and catheterization. I owe $2400 or so on that just for the deductibles, since my health insurance paid the rest. Here's the interesting part. The ambulance ride was free since I'm a county resident, though they did send begging letters asking for my insurance information to see if they could get some money from them. (Actually, I live in the city and worked in the county, but the ambulance service covers both.) I don't know how much my insurance paid, but it wouldn't have cost me a penny to get to the hospital even if I'd been uninsured. That job has since ended, and the hospital easily agreed when I suggested paying them $50/month until I get a new job, $200/month if I can line up one that pays anywhere near what I'd been making. (I'd like to pay it off in a year.) I asked if I could knock it down to $10/month if I don't line something up by the end of the year, and they not only agreed, but seemed downright eager to write off some of the principal when they heard I'm unemployed. There was never any question of interest, so every penny I pay reduces what I owe. I'm pretty sure they would have been just as willing to negotiate writeoffs and stretched-out payments for me if I'd been uninsured and owed them much more.

Of course, all this is not for Ritmo, who's not listening, but for anyone else who might have found this particular 'argument' plausible, particularly foreigners who think that tens of thousands of Americans without health insurance have died slow and agonizing deaths on the sidewalks outside locked emergency room doors. Utterly untrue.

Dr Weevil's point is a good one.It might not be as easy as just saying Old Uncle Obama will pick up this one for me, but it can be done. And don't overlook the fact that under Obamacare just getting an appointment in the first place could take months to years. If you put health care professionals out of business you have effectively limited health care to all the people who would have been their patients.

I never thought he was an atheist. I tend to take people at their word on such things.

But I do think it's amazing how Presidents says this authentically, even when they cannot be authentic about much else. Bush the Elder, was so eloquent on this point. When Obama said that line, I was moved.

"Of course, all this is not for Ritmo, who's not listening, but for anyone else who might have found this particular 'argument' plausible, particularly foreigners who think that tens of thousands of Americans without health insurance have died slow and agonizing deaths on the sidewalks outside locked emergency room doors. Utterly untrue."

I sure wish I had a dollar for each of the uninsured I spent hours with, usually in the middle of the night. I think I already related the story of the illegal alien who was walking on the railroad tracks on Memorial Day 1986.

After I put his liver back together, he told me that he was too busy in his landscape business to repay me by cutting my grass.

I never thought he was an atheist. I tend to take people at their word on such things.

Nor do I. I do think his mother was an atheist, and young Barack probably was as well. I think Michelle made a believer out of him--in Black Liberation Theology. But there will be no vetting of the latter, as as there will be no vetting of Mormonism--only smears and innuendo.

A question is (and Crack is going to roll his eyes here, but there you have it), how productive, truly, would such vetting of either be? How much do the voters care about their respective religious belies and how much should they?

Dante thought: One lesson is pretty clear. It's better to not owe anyone money, and be a lender. Who would have thought that?

Someone else thought even better:

Neither a borrower nor a lender be; For loan oft loses both itself and friend, And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry. This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.~Act I, Scene 3 of William Shakespeare's Hamlet

Chancellor Angela Merkel put health care reform at the top of her government's agenda. But the reform plan she's released has been roundly condemned and even brought thousands of protesters out onto the streets.

Germany has one of the best health care systems in the world, but experts have said for years that it won't stay that way unless it is substantially reformed. The system faces a massive budget shortfall, largely due to a financing structure that no longer works in today's Germany due to rising costs, low birth rates and stubbornly high unemployment.

Regarding thoughts about Democrats or Republicans moving out of the country, based on who wins. Here is a different idea.

Given technology, it seems there could be multiple overlay governments within the country. As the world gets smaller, the requirement of physical locality relating to law is becoming less important. For instance, the increase in power of the Federal Government.

So here is what I would like to see. A micro-set of laws that we must all abide by (call these universal laws, such as "Thou shalt not kill,"), and laws you get to sign up for. As in, a set of border-less states.

Consider the possibilities. There could be the Bagoh20 state. That's the "Let's get it done and have fun" state. Then there might be the Crack state. The "live free or die" state.

And there could be the Garage state.

Here is how it would work. You could be a member of one of the states, perhaps selected at the age of majority. If you want to move, you have to buy in. Presumably, to get into Garage Mahal's superior state, it might be expensive to switch to. Switching to Bagoh20's state, might be inexpensive, but hey, you have to work. And getting into Crack's state, you might have to pass both an IQ test and an Emotional IQ test, or at least smoke some pot =).

For those who are dismissive of this idea due to legal complications, these states could each have internal agreements with the other states about how to adjudicate. Consider that OSHA law when stacked end to end reaches to the top of a 10 foot ceiling, whereas the constitution was written on 6 pages, so there has been a lot of progress from the productivity of lawyers.

All it would take to make a new state is enough people to do it. You could have the muslim state. The Christian state. Etc.

There are some issues to deal with, such as natural resources of water, etc., and these would have to be handled carefully, due to the monopoly power.

See, I don't think that's correct. I'll give you a personal example. I was renting an apartment @ $800 dollars a month, no rent control, and I bought a house with a mortgage of $1230 a month. The numbers essentially worked out, but today that apartment would cost $1800.00 a month, and I paid off my mortgage years ago.

Fen, your abject stupidity is the only thing about you that bothers me.

I mean, I don't think much of you in any other sense - you seem more animal than human. But if you think it flatters you to gain negative attention from others (the way a three-year old might take it), then consider yourself unflattered.

Where can a small government conservative go to live in a true democratic republic these days if that's the way they prefer to live?

I dunno. A desert island somewhere. A cabin in the wilderness.

The problem is that your party's ideas are too anti-social to be compatible with life in a functional civil society. They are incompatible with any basic social contract, unfortunately.

It's one thing to be an individual in spirit. Your party's problem, though, is that they don't realize that people won't stand for a government that idly sits by and encourages or actively neglects catastrophes, just because you happen to want to believe that some people must somehow deserve them.

Oh, I listened, Dr. Weevil, to your massive diatribe. But I stopped being interested once I noticed that you conveniently conveniently omitted the adjective "decent" when pedantically lecturing me on the difference between health insurance and health care.

"There could be the Bagoh20 state. That's the "Let's get it done and have fun" state."

I'm Bagoh20, and I approve this message.

1st Commandment: Do unto others...2rd: Better than nothing is a high standard.3rd: If you are gonna make all my decisions, then why do we need both of us here?

My upthread suggestion was not that people should move if Obama loses, but that they can get the same thing by moving so why fight to force the rest of us into it. Leftists have many choices where they can get what they say they want and is so important. Conservatives really have none right now. We just want one. The United States is the only nation with the tradition, laws and people (mostly) to pull it off.

We are no longer an exceptionally free nation, but we are still the best hope for it to be realized as an idea and a system. Why kill it here? The other experiments are everywhere from the extremes of North Korea at one end to Sweden at the other, but they all (100%) assume the collective is supreme. What if they are wrong?

I guess my alleged (and mythical) position on NAFTA is just another one of those turds that Miniaturos yanked out of his fat ass, polished and held to the light of day as he does with every other one of those shiny gems he'd like to show off to everybody.

And stop pretending that you had anything to do with American exceptionalism. When the revolution occurred, a third of the public sided with the Tory king, and it sure as hell wasn't the un-conservative faction.

To the extent that I care go. I do realize that arguing with a liar (whose face is masked, how symbolic) is generally not the best use of time. So every now and then I'll just insult you - the same as you do to, well, basically everyone you disagree with.

neo also notes (here) a profile of Obama that appeared in last Sunday's NYT magazine. Like her, I'm surprised-- not by how unpleasant Obama is (I know that very well), but how unpleasant the portrait is. These vignettes are well known in the right-wing blogosphere; it's so strange to see them in the NYT.

We are no longer an exceptionally free nation, but we are still the best hope for it to be realized as an idea and a system. Why kill it here? The other experiments are everywhere from the extremes of North Korea at one end to Sweden at the other, but they all (100%) assume the collective is supreme. What if they are wrong?

This is the funny think about collectivism. Somehow, they have conceived of a state of human organization that can only be proved, or disproved, by complete homogeneity of law, culture, and purpose.

All in or all out. Sounds like too many eggs in one basket to me.

Meanwhile, the natural world is all about experimentation and competition. The things without competition, like sharks, tend to stagnate, remaining unchanged. The animals with competition are constantly trying new ways.

Give people like El Tardo the reigns, and progress stops.

Meanwhile, I do think the idea of borderless states could work, if there was the gumption to try it. Technology would allow it, but the US has become so fossilized in such a short period of time, it's probably not possible without major change.

"And stop pretending that you had anything to do with American exceptionalism. When the revolution occurred, a third of the public sided with the Tory king, and it sure as hell wasn't the un-conservative faction. "

This is the kind of thing that led me to give you the nickname "Lorem Ipsum".

It could be that you are just way smarter than me, so I just can't follow you. Either way, there isn't much point in it for me anymore.

I didn't see the speech, but just now watched some brief minutes. From what I saw, he seemed to do a good job as far as not going overboard with the 'oceans receding' stuff. He's done that, and realizes that to try to bring back the fevered would make him look foolish and desperate. I think he hit the right tone.

I checked out the brief lip expression that Althouse read as 'disgust,' while Meade saw 'resignation.' Maybe that's just reading in your own feelings. It could have been a suppressed sigh of relief, suppressed emotion at the adulation, or whatever. I wish they hadn't cut away before the families came out. (It can be seen on cspan.)

I find it hard to see what Obama could have said to beat expectations or succeed as a speechmaker in the present circumstances

Having a plan. Having an idea of what he wants to do in the next four years, and sharing that with the audience.

The problem, of course, is that his entire campaign strategy consists of making people terrified of Romney, the Big Evil Mormon Outsourcing Zillionair. Obama himself has no plan for the next four years beyond "remaining in power".

Which, naturally, is hard to build a speech around. At least when independent voters are watching.

After one lands on an aircraft carrier at night, one must fold the wings, and taxi out of the landing area and park. For expediency, one is often parked facing the ocean. One cannot see over the nose of a jet. The men parking you are "yellow shirts". Most likely, you've never met them, let alone "bonded" with them. They are usually 20-25 years old, not college graduates. But for that brief moment, your life is in their hands. There is no realistic ejection situation if they screw up.

Thus, they are being serious all the time. And there is no question in one's mind about it. There can't be.

Are the stakes on a blog as high? No, obviously not. But why shouldn't the level of trust be?

So a speech that was supposed to appeal to the mushy middle was mushy and muddled. No surprise there.

I don't think you can craft an effective message directly for the consumption of the mushy middle. Their mushiness is merely defined by the polarity in which they happen to live. Their whole existence is defined by the polar extremes. They hear something from one side and exclaim "Oooohhh! I don't like the sounds of that!" and then they hear something from the other and exclaim "Oooohhh! I don't like the sounds of that either!"

And then they assume their true feelings are somewhere in the middle. When someone tries to give voice to that middle ground, it can sound, well, off. Like Obama's speech.

Another thing about this speech that failed Obama is that it's not him. Clinton 'burned', Obama 'read' the speech and emoted as rehearsed, not necessarily as he truly felt. Because he didn't feel much for this speech. He knows the high-minded rhetoric rings hollow, and at his heart he's a Marxist rabblerouser who seems to delight in the excoriation of his opponents. He lacked the oratorical range needed to pull off a speech with a subdued, humble tenor.

When fact checkers call people liars for saying things like "Obama never went to Israel as president" while admitting "Obama never went to Israel as president" or "Obama will cut $716 billion from Medicare" while the fact checker admits "Obama will cut $716 billion from Medicare," yes, yes we should ignore fact checkers.

Here, again are my two pieces help explain -why- Republicans have stopped taking fact checkers seriously.

It doesn't help that, once Bush was out office, many of them closed up shop until the Republican primaries.

Since, in the wise words of an unwise person, "arguing with a liar . . . is generally not the best use of time", this is not for Ritmo, but for anyone who may have found his words in any way convincing.

He objects to my having written a "massive" comment because he cannot answer its argument. It takes all of a minute and a half to read 619 words, which is a lot less than it takes to read through Ritmo's 36 comments so far. (That's more than 20% of the comments on this post, and about 2% of the content. Anyone who was not a disgusting parasite would take that as a sign that he ought to start his own blog.)

Ritmo dishonestly pretends that socialized health care is somehow more 'decent' than American. Maybe (maybe) in Germany, but he obviously knows or (more likely) cares nothing about the horrors of (e.g.) British or Canadian health care (the movie The Barbarian Invasions can give you some hints on the latter). My anecdotes didn’t mention 'decent' health care because it was clearly implied. There was nothing in any way indecent about the health care cases I mentioned, no humiliation or degradation of any kind, and (unlike socialized medicine) no waiting lists. Of course, Ritmo knows that, and his objections are the usual contemptible lies. But then, we knew that before we read them, didn't we?

Tell your "colleagues" to lie and fudge facts less often and there will be less corrections for me to make of them, Weevil.

Interesting that a guy who names himself after a type of beetle would call others "parasites".

Also, try to learn the meaning of the word "obvious". It does not mean what you think it means. It is also NOT a way of saying a few personal experiences of yours are somehow American universals.

I won't respond to any more particulars in your post (although a person honestly interested in the health care debate would, and I would like to - Weevil's unwillingness to hear them notwithstanding), because:

You cannot distinguish your own experiences from those of others. Personal anecdotes do not substitute for factual analysis.

Enjoy your bubble and sorry to have ruined your day by doing you the dishonor of - HORROR OF HORRORS! - disagreeing.

Oh look, the parasite sucks again: 38 comments out of 179 is 21%. Just a few notes for the amusement and edification of any non-Ritmos still reading:

1. I never used the word 'colleague' so Ritmo's putting it in quotation marks is tantamount to a lie.

2. I used the word "obviously" twice. To which of these does Ritmo object? Does he not think it is obvious that someone who needs $27,000 worth of dental work has very bad teeth? Or does he not think it is obvious that he knows nothing about how socialized medicine actually works in Britain and Canada?

3. There were no lies or fudged facts in either of my anecdotes, which do in fact prove what I said they proved, that lacking medical insurance is not the same thing as lacking medical care, at least in the U.S. Does Ritmo deny that many American cities and counties have free medical and dental clinics, that many (perhaps most) American hospitals will gladly negotiate payment plans and writeoffs, and that it is far easier to arrange convenient payment of medical bills when you're short of money than to renegotiate your rent, or utilities, or credit card minimums, or gas for your car, or food, or just about any other necessary expense? Is he unaware that Americans without medical insurance get better health care, with far shorter wait times, than most foreigners with 'free' national health care? Apparently.

4. A weevil is not a parasite. On the other hand, Ritmo is not just a parasite, but an obligate parasite, the kind who "are unable to survive apart from their hosts. Often this is because in the course of evolution they have lost various of the organs necessary to live as independent units" - organs such as a functioning brain and a minimal sense of decency, in Ritmo's case. He doesn't start his own blog because he knows no one would ever read his crap if he didn't take over the comment section of a blog that is worth reading.

5. Does Ritmo really think he can ruin my day by disagreeing with me? Does he not know that his rude and ignorant disagreements are a badge of honor to just about everyone who reads them?

Oh dear! The poor intellectual bully can dish out the insults, but can't seem to take them, much less answer actual arguments. Maybe if he'd bothered to say who my supposed "colleagues" are and what "lies" they supposedly told, I wouldn't have been left to guess.

Or maybe that was the point, to keep the stupid conversation going so he can make some more stupid insults and stupid pseudo-arguments and give his pathetic parasitic existence some sort of meaning.

He's just a filthy comment-tick who doesn't care how much he damages this site as long as he can suck some sort of pseudo-intellectual sustenance from it and doesn't actually kill it - or convince AA to ban him, which would be the blog equivalent of a tick shampoo - so he still has a place to plant his stupid lies and stupider insults.

But you've already revealed that you seem to have a problem distinguishing between obviously different points, so I'm not surprised that you can't tell the difference between yourself and other commenters.

BTW, great quality of content you've added! It's obvious not only that you have a lot of time on your hands, but why that is.

Tim, who must apparently believe himself to be a very decent, civilized and upstanding man -- (his rather crude descent into unadulterated vulgarity notwithstanding), has not learned that accusations of changing the subject are more credible when he can get the basic facts behind his own argument straight.

But he can't. I'd pity that, but obviously he prefers to wallow in his shallow fury and hatred.

The stupid tick denies that he insulted me, when he started by saying that I had written a "massive diatribe" in which I was "pedantically lecturing" him. Sounds kind of insulting to me.

Now he accuses me of having 'a lot of time on my hands' because I've written four comments, three of them longish. What does that tell us about his own 40+ comments on this post alone? Either he has way more time on his hands than I have and is therefore a disgusting hypocrite, or he's being paid to write here. I wonder which it is.

Of course, he also insulted himself without apparently realizing it, when he wrote (9:55am) "I won't respond to any more particulars in your post (although a person honestly interested in the health care debate would . . . ." If that means anything at all, it means that the silly tick is not, by his own admission, "honestly interested in the health care debate". Inept writing, Freudian slip, or a bit of each? Any reader can judge which is most likely.

Your post is most choijeble.Take my cordial love. I am very interested to watch your valuable work. Hope your site will develop very soon . I admire the valuable information u offered in your message. I am very impressed to watch your KEYWORDS.Everybody can excited to see your post. That is very authentic & fantastic. Take care & Thanks. For more information plz click this linkVISIONSUCCESSLEADERSHIP

Your post is most choijeble.Take my cordial love. I am very interested to watch your valuable work.Hope your site will develop very soon . I admire the valuable information u offered in your message.I am very impressed to watch your KEYWORDS.Everybody can excited to see your post.That is very authentic & fantastic. Take care & Thanks. For more information plz click this linkStart-up Businesssmall business helpbusiness successbusiness entitytax help

Your post is most choijeble.Take my cordial love. I am very interested to watch your valuable work. Hope your site will develop very soon . I admire the valuable information u offered in your message. I am very impressed to watch your KEYWORDS.Everybody can excited to see your post. That is very authentic & fantastic. Take care & Thanks. For more information plz click this linkVISIONSUCCESSLEADERSHIP

Your post is most choijeble.Take my cordial love. I am very interested to watch your valuable work. Hope your site will develop very soon . I admire the valuable information u offered in your message. I am very impressed to watch your KEYWORDS.Everybody can excited to see your post. That is very authentic & fantastic. Take care & Thanks. For more information plz click this linkVISIONSUCCESSLEADERSHIP

Your post is most choijeble.Take my cordial love. I am very interested to watch your valuable work. Hope your site will develop very soon . I admire the valuable information u offered in your message. I am very impressed to watch your KEYWORDS.Everybody can excited to see your post. That is very authentic & fantastic. Take care & Thanks. For more information plz click this linkVISIONSUCCESSLEADERSHIP

Hi.My first visit to your site.Your site offers valuable information.I am very impressed to watch your KEYWORD and products. Your site is very nice.I like you and your site.Join in the conversation as Scott Williams profiles his favorite sports agents Dan Lozano and the players they represent! Subscribe to the DanLozan.com blog TodayDan LozanoDanny Lozano

Hi. You have done really very good site. Great work, great site.Your site offers valuable information and good looking.I am very impressed to watch your keyword and description.I hope that you can improve. Success you will wait the next day.Dan LozanoDanny Lozanobaseball sports agentsports agent